That was paid to himself. I have no doubt, myself, that I paid that to Mr. Ames.

Reviewing the testimony on this point (and I have quoted it all), it will be seen that Mr. Ames, several times, asserts that he does not know whether he paid me the check or not. He states positively that he has no special recollection of the check. His testimony is wholly inferential. In one of the seven paragraphs quoted, he says he paid me the money; in another, he says he may have paid me the money; in three of them, he thinks, or presumes, that he paid me the check; and in the other two, he says he does not know.

The cashier of the sergeant-at-arms has no doubt that Mr. Ames himself drew the money on the check. And yet, upon this vague and wholly inconclusive testimony, and almost alone upon it, is based the assumption that I received from Mr.. Ames $329, as a dividend on the stock. I affirm, with perfect distinctness of recollection, that I received no check from Mr. Ames. The only money I ever received from him was in currency.

The only other evidence, in support of the assumption that he paid me $329, as a balance on the stock, is found in the entries in his diary for 1868. The value of this class of memoranda depends altogether upon their character, and upon the business habits of the man who makes them. On this latter point, the following testimony of Mr. Ames is important:

Q. Is it your habit, as a matter of business, in conducting various transactions with different persons,

to do it without making any memoranda? — A. This was my habit. Until within a year or two, I have had no book-keeper, and I used to keep all my own matters in my own way, and very carelessly, I admit.

The memorandum-book, in which these entries were made, was not presented to the committee until the 11th of February, one week before they made their report. This book does not contain continuous entries of current transactions, with consecutive dates. It is in no sense a day-book; but contains a loose, irregular mass of memoranda, which may have been made at the time of the transactions, or long afterward. Mr. Ames says of it in his testimony:

Q. What was the character of the book in which the memoranda were made?-A. It was in a small pocket memorandum, and some of it on slips of paper.

It is not pretended that this book contains a complete record of payments and receipts. And yet, besides the check, already referred to, this book, so made up, contains the only evidence, or pretended evidence, on which it is claimed that I agreed to take the stock. It should be remembered that every portion of this evidence, both check and book, is of Mr. Ames' own making. I have already referred to the undated memorandum of an account in this book, under my name, and have shown that it neither proved a sale of stock, or any payment on account of it.

There are but two other entries in the book relating to me, and they are two lists of names, substantially

duplicates of each other, with various amounts set opposite each. They are found on pages 450 and 453 of the testimony. The word 'paid' is marked before the first name on one of these lists, and ditto marks placed under the word 'paid,' and opposite the remaining names. But the value of this entry, as proof of payment, will be seen from the cross-examination of Mr. Ames, which immediately follows the list:

Q. This entry, 'Paid S. Colfax $1,200,' is the amount which you paid by this check on the sergeantat-arms? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was this entry upon this page of these various names intended to show the amount you were to pay, or that you had paid; was that made at this date?A. I do not know; it was made about that time. I would not have written it on Sunday; it is not very likely. It was made on a blank page. It is simply a list of names.

Q. Were these names put down after you had made the payments, or before, do you think?—A. Before, I think.

Q. You think you made this list before the parties referred to had actually received their checks, or received the money? A. Yes, sir; that was to show whom I had to pay, and who were entitled to receive the 60 per cent. dividend. It shows whom I had to pay here in Washington.

it.

Q. It says paid?'-A. Yes, sir; well, I did pay

Q. What I want to know is, whether the list was made out before, or after payment?-A.. About the same time, I suppose; probably, before.

The other list, bearing the same names and amounts,

shows no other evidence that the several sums were paid, than a cross marked opposite each amount. But concerning this, Mr. Ames testifies that it was a list of what was to be paid, and that the cross was subsequently added to show that the amount had been paid.

Neither of these lists shows anything as to the time or mode of payment, and would nowhere be accepted as proof of payment. By Mr. Ames' own showing, they are lists of persons to whom he expected to pay the amounts set opposite their names. They may exhibit his expectations, but they do not prove the alleged payments. If the exact sum of $329 was received by me at the time, and under the circumstances alleged by Mr. Ames, it implies an agreement to take the stock. It implies, furthermore, that Mr. Ames had sold Pacific railroad bonds for me; that he had received, also, a cash dividend for me, and had accounted to me as trustee for these receipts, and the balance of the proceeds.

Now, I affirm, with the firmest conviction of the correctness of my statement, that I never heard until this investigation began, that Mr. Ames ever sold any bonds, or performed any other stock transactions on my behalf, and no act of mine was ever based on such a supposition.

The only remaining testimony bearing upon me, is that in which Mr. Ames refers to conversations between himself and me, after the investigation began. The first of these was of his own seeking, and occurred before he or I had testified. Soon

after the investigation began, Mr. Ames asked me what I remembered of our talk in 1867-'68, in reference to the Credit Mobilier company. I told him I could best answer his question by reading to him the statement I had already prepared to lay before the committee, when I should be called. Accordingly, on the following day, I took my written statement to the Capitol, and read it to him carefully, sentence by sentence, and asked him to point out anything which he might think incorrect. He made but two criticisms; one, in regard to a date, and the other, that he thought it was the Credit Foncier and not the Credit Mobilier that Mr. Train asked me to subscribe to in 1866-'67. When I read the paragraph in which I stated that I had once borrowed $300 of him, he remarked, 'I believe I did let you have some money, but I had forgotten it.' He said nothing to indicate that he regarded me as having purchased the stock; and from that conversation, I did not doubt that he regarded my statement substantially correct. His first testimony, given a few days afterward, confirmed me in this opinion.

I had another interview with Mr. Ames, of my own seeking, to which he alludes elsewhere; and for a full understanding of it, a statement of some previous facts is necessary. I gave my testimony before the committee, and in Mr. Ames' hearing, on the morning of January 14. It consisted of the statement I had already read to Mr. Ames, and of the cross-examination which followed my reading of the statement, all of which has been quoted above.